Southern California Water Committee
The Southern California Water Committee addresses our state’s most critical water issues in order to ensure continued economic growth for California, and a secure, reliable water supply for its people.

H2outlook Blog
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Blog

Northern California Water Association Blog
The NCWA Mission is to advance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the Sacramento Valley by enhancing and preserving its water rights, supplies, and water quality.

Meta

Tag: adjudication

This is updated from a previous post, which was an example for a stream with adjudicated water rights. However, it also works for any stream where there are water rights with legally defined diversion quantities, if all the diverters have headgates in good condition and/or measurement devices such as weirs, flumes, and pipe meters.

Is John Stealing Water?? John Casey has a cattle ranch near Adin, where he grows pasture and hay to raise about 70 Angus steers. His ranch is 240 acres with lower irrigated land and forest on the higher part. He has an a licensed water right of 2.00 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Preacher Creek, to irrigate 80 acres, from April 1 to November 1.

John’s downstream neighbors claim he steals water. He says he can show that he takes only 2 cfs, or less when the flow drops down in the summer. Can he prove it?

As we can see, he has a square headgate at the head of his ditch. It is 2.0′ wide, and can open up to 1.5′ high. Right now, John says he is diverting 1.05 cfs. His evidence is that his gate is open 0.15′, the water is 0.57′ deep on the upstream side, and the water is 0.20′ deep on the downstream side. Is that enough to check what he says?

The box in which the gate sits has smooth walls, and the gate closes flush with the bottom when John is not diverting. The water continues in a straight path from upstream to downstream. That means the weir has “suppressed” sides.

This is in contrast with, for example, a hole cut in the middle of a 2″ x 12″ weir board. The water on the sides has to make the turn to go straight through, so the hole in the board is an example of a “contracted” orifice.

Let’s look at the tables for orifices in the back of the Water Measurement Manual. Table A9-3 is for submerged, suppressed weirs.

We can’t see the downstream side of the weir, but the water is above the bottom of the edge of the gate, so it is submerged rather than free-flowing.

This table has flows calculated for a minimum area of 2.0 square feet (sq. ft.). However, the area of the opening at John’s headgate is 2.0′ wide x 0.15′ high, or 0.30 sq. ft. Fortunately, the equation, Q=0.70A(2g Δh)^0.5, is listed right at the top of the table. We can calculate the flow using that. Q is the flow in cfs, A is the area of the orifice hole, g = the acceleration due to gravity, or 32.2 ft/second^2 (feet per second squared), and Δh is the difference between the upstream and downstream water depth.

So the flow Q = 0.70 x (2.0′ x 0.30′) x (2 x 32.2 x 0.37′)^0.5 = 1.03 cfs. So far so good – John is taking 52%, or just over half of his right when 100 percent of flows are available. But, how much flow is actually available right now?

Let’s use the “sum of the boxes” method. Instead of measuring the amount of water in Preacher Creek at the top, before any diversions, and then estimating how much flow is being lost to evaporation, transpiration, and infiltration, and then estimating how much flow is subsurface above John Casey’s ranch and “pops up” out of the ground below, we’ll look at what each diversion amount is, plus the amount still in the creek after the last diversion. This is very useful because none of the instream losses have to be estimated – we just add the diversions and flow still in the creek, and that amount IS the available supply.

Water Board Permits and Licenses are usually not interrelated – they specify water rights without considering the other water rights on the stream. This is different from adjudicated streams, whether done by the Water Board or the Department of Water Resources. Some Superior Court judges in past decades were pretty smart and actually ordered that available flows be calculated by the sum of the boxes:

The paragraph above, from the Susan River Decree, defines available water supply as what is being diverted, plus the flow passing the last diversion.

There are 4 diversions on Preacher Creek, and here are the amounts being diverted:

Diversion 1 (John Casey) 1.03 cfs of a 1.60 cfs water right, 52% of his total right

Diversion 2 (Amy Hoss) 1.67 cfs of a 3.80 cfs water right, 44% of her total right

Diversion 3 (Mark and Cindy Sample) 0.55 cfs of a 0.88 cfs water right, 62% of their total right

Diversion 4 (Quint and Marcie Minks) 1.32 cfs of a 2.50 cfs water right, 53% of his total right

Flow still in the creek past the Minks Diverison – Quint estimates about 0.7 cfs

The total diversion-plus-bypass flow is about 5.3 cfs. The total rights on the creek are 9.48 cfs. Therefore, the total available flow = 5.3 / 9.48 = 56%.

So, John is right, he is not stealing water! He is taking 52% of his water right, when he could be taking 56% according to the “sum of the boxes” method. Not only that, but Amy could take more, the Samples should reduce their diversion, and the Minks’s could take a tad more. Well, that’s theoretical – Quint and Marcie Minks probably cannot seal up their dam completely, so there may be a little bit less flow actually available for diversion.

Is John Stealing Water?? John Casey has a cattle ranch near Adin, where he grows pasture and hay to raise about 70 Angus steers. His place is 240 acres with lower irrigated land and forest on the higher part. He has an adjudicated water right of 2.00 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Preacher Creek, to irrigate 80 acres.

John’s downstream neighbors claim he steals water. He says he can show that he takes only 2 cfs, or less when the flow drops down in the summer. Can he prove it?

As we can see, he has a square headgate at the head of his ditch. It is 2.0′ wide, and can open up to 1.5′ high. Right now, John says he is diverting 1.05 cfs. His evidence is that his gate is open 0.15′, the water is 0.57′ deep on the upstream side, and the water is 0.20′ deep on the downstream side. Is that enough to check what he says?

The box in which the gate sits has smooth walls, and the gate closes flush with the bottom when John is not diverting. The water continues in a straight path from upstream to downstream. That means the weir has “suppressed” sides.

This is in contrast with, for example, a hole cut in the middle of a 2″ x 12″ weir board. The water on the sides has to make the turn to go straight through, so the hole in the board is an example of a “contracted” orifice.

Let’s look at the tables for orifices in the back of the Water Measurement Manual. Table A9-3 is for submerged, suppressed weirs.

We can’t see the downstream side of the weir, but the water is above the bottom of the edge of the gate, so it is submerged rather than free-flowing.

This table has flows calculated for a minimum area of 2.0 square feet (sq. ft.). However, the area of the opening at John’s headgate is 2.0′ wide x 0.15′ high, or 0.30 sq. ft. Fortunately, the equation, Q=0.70A(2g Δh)^0.5, is listed right at the top of the table. We can calculate the flow using that. Q is the flow in cfs, A is the area of the orifice hole, g = the acceleration due to gravity, or 32.2 ft/second^2 (feet per second squared), and Δh is the difference between the upstream and downstream water depth.

So the flow Q = 0.70 x (2.0′ x 0.30′) x (2 x 32.2 x 0.37′)^0.5 = 1.03 cfs. So far so good – John is taking 52%, or just over half of his right when 100 percent of flows are available. But, how much flow is actually available right now?

Let’s use the “sum of the boxes” method. Instead of measuring the amount of water in Preacher Creek at the top, before any diversions, and then estimating how much flow is being lost to evaporation, transpiration, and infiltration, and then estimating how much flow is subsurface above John Casey’s ranch and “pops up” out of the ground below, we’ll look at what each diversion amount is, plus the amount still in the creek after the last diversion. This is very useful because none of the instream losses have to be estimated – we just add the diversions and flow still in the creek, and that amount IS the available supply. Some Superior Court judges in past decades were pretty smart and actually ordered that available flows be calculated this way.

The paragraph above, from the Susan River Decree, defines available water supply as what is being diverted, plus the flow passing the last diversion.

There are 4 diversions on Preacher Creek, and here are the amounts being diverted:

Diversion 1 (John Casey) 1.03 cfs of a 1.60 cfs water right, 52% of his total right

Diversion 2 (Amy Hoss) 1.67 cfs of a 3.80 cfs water right, 44% of her total right

Diversion 3 (Mark and Cindy Sample) 0.55 cfs of a 0.88 cfs water right, 62% of their total right

Diversion 4 (Quint and Marcie Minks) 1.32 cfs of a 2.50 cfs water right, 53% of his total right

Flow still in the creek past the Minks Diverison – Quint estimates about 0.7 cfs

The total diversion-plus-bypass flow is about 5.3 cfs. The total rights on the creek are 9.48 cfs. Therefore, the total available flow = 5.3 / 9.48 = 56%.

So, John is right, he is not stealing water! He is taking 52% of his water right, when he could be taking 56% according to the “sum of the boxes” method. Not only that, but Amy could take more, the Samples should reduce their diversion, and the Minks’s could take a tad more. Well, that’s theoretical – Quint and Marcie Minks probably cannot seal up their dam completely, so there may be a little bit less flow actually available for diversion.

…continued from yesterday’s Part 1…. To recap, in 2005, San Bernardinoans Arnold and Eileen Williamson bought property near South Cow Creek up in Northern California to retire on and build a new house. They were set on drilling a new well and uncertainties in how much they could pump got them looking into their surface water right – do they have one for sure, and how much water is it? They ended up taking their questions to an engineer who could answer their questions. The map below is one of several from the report they got from the engineer, showing their property boundary on the 1965 decree map of irrigated lands:

The report cost $350. They’re pretty sure they would have paid a lot more than that to see an attorney. The engineer warns them that if it gets contentious and they can’t work out access to the water with their neighbors, they may end up having to get legal help. He recommends Jeff Swanson if it comes to that – he’s an expert water rights laywer in Redding. For now, though, they have documentation they can discuss with their neighbors to work on getting their water right to their property.

Their property is on land that back in 1968 belonged to Howard and Gladys Leggett. It has an adjudicated second priority water right for irrigation equal to 0.063 cubic feet per second, or 28.5 gallons per minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from March through October. This 2nd priority right is less than the second and third priorities on the upper creek and tributaries, but it is the highest irrigation priority on the lower creek. Back when the property was flooded, that was usually enough to flood irrigate their entire lot to grow pasture or hay. That’s great news!

As natural flows drop during the summer that amount is reduced and everyone with a lower creek second priority has to reduce their diversion by the same percentage. In normal and wet years they could keep their pasture, hay, or whatever else they plant, irrigated for most or all of the irrigation season. And whether or not they use the water, the right does stay with the land and protect their property value.

What else was in their report? There was a cover letter, and next some excerpts from the decree. Schedule 1 lists the places of use for all the original owners. The Leggetts’ description takes up most of page 60; the Williamson’s property is on the 69.8 acres listed in the second paragraph for the Leggett land:

Schedule 2 lists all the points of diversion, whether gravity diversions or pumps. The Leggett property actually could get water from two diversions, a pump from the creek, and a proposed second, movable diversion on the creek. That’s convenient – per the decree they could already divert their water from someone else’s existing diversion, or pump their water from Diversion 95, or they could get it from anywhere they can get agreement from the landowner!

Schedule 6 lists the water rights for Lower Cow Creek – other schedules have rights for the upper creek and tributaries. This is interesting: there are four priorities of rights and

this part of the Leggetts’ property has a 1st and a 2nd priority right. What does that mean exactly? The decree explains that 1st priority rights are domestic – houses and gardens. It’s a very small right and it is not clear whether or how it should be divided up among the all the subdivided parcels that used to be the Leggett ranch. The engineer noted it in the cover letter.

How was the water right calculated for the Williamsons? Using a geographic information system, or GIS, the engineer used his training and years of experience to precisely overlay the Assessor Parcel Map on the decree map. Then he measured the acreage for both, and prorated the water right by area. The following screenshots of the Excel spreadsheet shows these calculations.

Time to fess up: this was a water right subdivision of a made up parcel of land, and the Williamsons don’t actually own it. However, this story is one that happens every day, when a landowner asks “How much is my water right, really?” Having information before arguing with neighbors, seeing attorneys, sending legal letters, and going to court, can help smart people who generally have good relationships work out happy and agreeable solutions. The Williamsons were smart and talked politely with their neighbors, the Turings and Poulens and Winters’s. Now they have a good basis to live peacefully in their neighborhood for many years, and Arnold can borrow Charlie’s lawnmower until he gets his own.

Back in 2005, Arnold and Eileen Williamson bought property near South Cow Creek in Shasta County. They live in San Bernardino and plan to retire early, and build a new house on their land. The parcel is part of an old ranch just off Highway 44.

The Williamsons paid $220,000 for the 3.55 acre lot. That seemed high compared to similar parcels in the area, but they were assured the land has adjudicated water rights from South Cow Creek.

Arnold and Eileen brought their travel trailer to live on the land while they are building a new house. Their savings account is in good shape so they are going to build a nice 2,200 square foot, single story ranch house with a garage and a shop. They talked to a well driller 10 years ago and he assured them it would be easy to put in a well, for a cost of around $18,000.

When Arnold and Eileen went to get a permit to drill a well, they ran into unexpected problems. Parcels on either side have their septic systems close to the common property lines, so their possible well locations are few. Maybe a bigger issue is the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014. Will their pumping rate be limited, and will their well-drilling permit application get held up?

Now the Williamsons are checking into their surface water right. Is it enough for some pasture for horses and a few cows, in addition to the house and garden? The Turings who live on the east side say there are no water rights. The Poulans, to the west, say they have lived here for 6 years and they have never had water – they think the water right was bought off the place, or lost because of non-use.Now the Williamsons are upset and headed toward just plain mad. The real estate agent said they had rights, and didn’t the title companies insure it?? After a few frantic calls, they found out that title companies don’t insure water rights. But, their realtor gave them the number of some folks over on the north side of the highway, and they have a “decree map”. Arnold and Eileen head over to the Winters’ place to look over the maps. Brad and Jenny Winters even have the Internet address where the decree can be downloaded: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/judgments/docs/cowcreek_jd.pdf

It turns out that the Cow Creek adjudication does not have maps, but an engineering report done a few years before the decree was issued does have the maps. Brad and Jenny have that report, too, so they have Sheets 1 through 5 showing the “Diversions And Irrigated Lands” on Cow Creek. Sheet 5 covers the area including the Winters and Williamson places. Sheet 5 has a lot of “irrigated lands” according to the legend – the green areas.

By looking at the maps, and their Assessor Parcel Map they have in their escrow package, it sure looks like their property is completely within the green area. Great! Now, how do they figure out if they actually have a water right?After asking around, Arnold and Eileen figure out they will need to see an attorney. They call around and find out there are a couple of engineering companies that can see them faster, and they might cost less. An appointment with Rights To Water Engineering the next morning is their next step. Within a couple of days, they have a nice report in their hands and answers to their questions. So what did they find out? That is an answer for the next post.